Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 02/06/2022 08:19, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, June 2, 2022 11:26 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 02-Jun-22 08:45, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 6/1/22 16:04, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or is it the IETF's position that no one is actually
>>>> responsible for monitoring the appropriateness of content on
>>>> non-WG lists or accountable for doing, or not doing, that?
>
>> I suspect that the position is that there is, formally, no
>> position. When I've been the mailman admin for such lists,
>> fortunately I've never had to deal with untoward messages, but
>> I'd say that it would clearly have been my job to do so. Also,
>> there's always an AD who authorised each list (or their
>> predecessor did so), so there's a chain of responsibility.
>
> Except that the authorizing AD is generally not identified on
> the mailing list page for non-WG mailing lists.  Moreover, ADs
> change while mailing lists go on.  When ADs change, we generally
> see an announcement of which new ADs is taking over which WGs
> (and that information is available on the WG pages in any
> event).  I do not recall ever seeing such an announcement about
> transfer of responsibility for mailing lists.  So, if there is a
> chain of responsibility that leads in the direction of an
> authorizing AD, it is a rather weak one.
>
>> All our policies do apply to non-WG mailing lists, according to
>> https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/nonwglist-guidelines/ which
>> cites
>> the Note Well. In particular the code of conduct and
>> anti-harassment BCPs apply.
>
> Again, I took that as given.
>
>> So the missing link seems to be an IESG Statement that absent
>> any other provision, the administrators of a non-WG list
>> should fulfill the role described in RFC3934 (part of BCP24).
>
> Yes, but meaningful only of those administrators can be
> identified.  Many of the things that have been said about the
> code of conduct and anti-harassment policies identify the
> importance of being able to handle apparent violations in a
> quiet and confidential fashion, avoiding causing public
> embarrassment to someone whose behavior we would like to see
> corrected rather than publicly calling them out.  But to do
> that, the administrators should be identified (if only so that
> an offended party knows who they are contacting and that the
> contacts are not part of the problem).  Even if a role address
> were acceptable, it should be clear who receives that address,
> whether it is publicly archived, etc.


How about
<list-name>-owner
making it clear in future to those who take on that responsibility that 
that is part of their responsibility?

Tom Petch


>
>> ...
>
> I think I've covered your other comments in earlier messages
> (sorry, busy day and reading most-recent-first).
>
> best,
>     john
>
> .
>